Are we using two different definitions of evidence?

Question

Now I really don't mean to bash anyone. If you believe in God because of faith and/or what you perceive as personal experience of him, ore power to you. I disagree with you but since it's faith it would be pointless trying to convince you otherwise and I don't want to, as long as you're a good person have faith in anything you want. It hurts no one.

However, it does bother me when people try to prove it and have no evidence. You point to holes in other theories like the big bang and evolution and say God did it. That is by no means proof or evidence of any kind. All human conceived ideas are as imperfect as their creator but are at least trying to use fact to back it up. So pointing to an imperfection in a different theory does not make your theory anymore valid in any case ever for anything at all. Something not being blue is not proof that it is red. A piece of an old boat could prove and ark and even a flood, but not a God. Experience is subject to interpretation and is not fact.

So can anyone explain what proof any one has for any higher power or will you admit it is just faith?

Do NOT say the Earth and myself are proof, it is not as we can find no magical holy cells in our body so you are using faith again. Faith doesn't bother me but don't claim it is proof.

If you do post something you see is proof please come back and check later details.

Oh and Ninevah or whichever lost city it was they found is also no proof because it is just a city and proves nothing more than that the people who wrote the Bible were alive in the time that they claim.

No I do not have faith in evolution, I believe it where it seems very obvious, but I don't have "faith" in it. But faith is by definition a belief and fact by definition can not be argued to be different. Therefore evolution is a theory and you have faith not proof.

Thanks for being civil aboutit but if you just point out faults in the theory to prove it isn't perfect then you are being a skeptic and I applaud you for using logic, that isn't my problem. I don't like when they use it as proof for their own theory, no matter which side does it it contradicts reason and is pointless. And I find the big bang and evolution more probable because they use fact where they can where as religion uses faith which doesn't need evidence if you really have faith, so I lean towards the one with a sturdier foundation. That's just my point of view by the way, I'm not saying anyone is wrong for sure.

John St, you say we use the same evidence but it doesn't work as evidence for a religious side. You see the evidence then assume there must be something higher to create the evidence, which there is no evidence of, you can use that to prove that we exist but not that it was created. You could reason that but there is nothing that really supports what is essentially magic, you can say that's how the evidence got there but that is faith because you have to physical proof of the higher power you say put it there more than thatit IS in fact there.

Answer 1

Yes, you are basically right - recent trends, such as the "intelligent design" (ID) movement, radically misconstrue the notion of evidence and the very nature of scientific theory. Yes, of COURSE there are gaps in what evolutionary theory and cosmology can explain, but the fact is, they have explained a lot, and the gaps are growing smaller with each passing year.

ID, by contrast, offers no explanation in the scientific sense - it gives us no reason to expect one kind of configuration over another, it makes no testable predictions, and it is not supported by any positive evidence whatsoever - its only support lies in the fact that rival theories are less than perfectly worked out, and that's no evidence at all.

Answer 2

Im going to try to explain this in hopes it doesnt sound condescending. Evidence in both cases, I believe is relative to the person looking at it. First, Evidence is not proof, but it is something believed by the holder to be in favor of the subject (Or against) An athiest can say "the fossil records show changing species all the time" To the atheist, this is evidence against God and in favor of Evolution... the Christian can see the same thing and say "It only shows change, not huge jumps. Change does happen but not huge jumps" To them, it is now evidence That God created and evidence against Evolution.

Also personal experiences are important, though you may not find them to be proof, they were enough evidence to prove God to the person experiencing them. Would it be wise to say that headaches don't exist if you never had one, just because you cannot see them and science cannot messure them? (really they can't, thats why many people with migrains are told they dont have them) You can look at a CAT scan and see a concussion or tumor and think "Ok, that person might have a headache" but most headaches can not be medically or scientifically proven but it would be silly to say unless you have a tumor or concussion we can see on CAT scan, you don't have a headache.

It wouldn't hurt for a nonbeliever to look at reasons why believers believe and think "If so many people have experienced this.... there must be something to it" and see it for more than "mass hysteria"

Answer 3

yes, and i believe their system is wrong also. evolution is a theory that came from the results of study and observation. and now evidence is provided to support it or cahnge it.
however christians simply start with creationism with no prior reasoning and now attempt to find evidence to support it.

christians have no proof. afterall if they had proof, then they wouldnt need the faith they hold so dearly. They see things the way they want to see it such as the ark and flood and they try to connect things in ways that serve they're purposes.

For instance, explorers found a buried ruin and there were the words "house of david". apologetics try to use this to say that since the house of david, bloodline of david, existed everything in the bible about david is correct. However that only means that it existed and nothing more. just because the bible names real places, it doesnt mean the stories it contains are real life events. Also apprently the words house of david meant just that. A house of david, or a temple of an ancient god whose name lies at the roots of the name david.

and apparently there are mathmatical errors in the bible. read it on wiki once.

Answer 4

I am not sure I understand what you are asking. Creationist and evolutionist, and the scientist on both sides of this issue all have the same evidence-this we know. On each side, the proponents have a pre-conceived belief that either God created this world or that it evolved-this we know. The difference is how each group interprets that evidence. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that God exist-this we know. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that we evolved-this we know. We are stuck at this point. In spite of the tons of evidence that has been discovered in the last 50 years, we still have no evidence that proves either side-none. What scientist have resorted to is modeling. (you can check it out yourself) Modeling does not favor evolution so far, but it does favor creation. Apply the same evidence to each model, one supports creation but not evolution. This has many scientist perplexed. But to answer your question-we use the same evidence.

Answer 5

the proof is in the individual yes. i have seen poelpe do many miralces in the name of God, and I've seen way too many for me to count them off as coincidence.
And I agree that the creation theory and the evolution theory both have nearly equal amount of evidence to support it. However, I also know that not every evolutionist shares the same viewpoint as yourself. The reason Christians point to holes in the evolution theory is fo rthe same reaon evolutionists point to holes in the creation theory. The other party believes it so matter-of-factly, that the person feels almost obligated to point out the errors.
in either case, it is not to try disporve the theory as a whole, but rather to raise questions about the soundness of the thoery.

Answer 6

The answers you're receiving leave me wondering if the meta-physical solipsists didn't get it right. The pre-Socratic sophist Gorgias (c483-375 bc) proffered the following: 1. Nothing exists; 2. Even if it did nothing could be known about; 3. Even if it could, it couldn't be communicated to others. I can only suggest that the lack of agreement as to the definitions of key terms, such as "evidence", "fact", or "proof", will preclude any form of meaning full resolution of your question. It did make for some interesting reading though, thanks.

Answer 7

Let's look at this question from a scientific point of view. Remember Isaac Newton's first law of motion that says every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state unless an external force is applied to it; or its inverse: any object that is at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. Now when we observe our universe, we see can see objects moving. How did that object begin to move?--because another object or force was applied to it. "Whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put into motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity...Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put into motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God" (Aquinas). The most logical retort to this explanation would be why is there no infinity. This question is easily answered. If time went on for infinity, Then any thing is possible. For example: if you had an infinite number of monkeys typing on typewriters for an infinite amount of time, at least one of the monkeys will have typed out a Shakespearean play. If anything is possible, than at one point there must have been a universe with no matter. If there ever was a universe with no matter, than there would be no matter even today, unless of course some "outside force" created it.

Answer 8

Most people have no clue as to what the scientific method is, what a hypothesis, theory, fact, or faith really are. Combine that with the conservative political movement to destroy science as we know it, and you have the formation of a sheep like population that will embrace theocracy aka dictatorship, and trash the separation of church & state.

Answer 9

Are you asking for scientific evidence of how the world came into being? The scientific method requires observation, so any view of the past requires faith.

Answer 10

Faith is evidence of things unseen.